Jul 2, 2012

New 1695 Problem

The form 1695 is the form that an attorney submits to Social Security that allows for direct payment of fees. The form includes the attorney's Social Security number. Social Security's current policy is to include this form in the claimant's file but to obscure the attorney's Social Security number. I have two problems with this. First, some disability files are still paper. Non-disability files are always paper. I don't think that marking through the attorney's Social Security number will completely obscure the attorney's Social Security number if one has access to the paper form. Second, and more important, many attorneys who represent Social Security claimants work for law firms. An attorney who works for a law firm must include the firm's Employer Identification Number (EIN) on the 1695. The EIN looks exactly like a Social Security number and functions much like a Social Security number. It is personally identifiable information -- so long as we accept that a corporation is a person. It is certainly corporately identifiable information and could be used for criminal purposes. It might be possible for Social Security employees to use the EIN to access data in Social Security's records on payments of fees to law firms.

We need a better process. These EINs should not be left exposed and the attorney Social Security numbers in paper files need to be better protected.

16 comments:

"I don't think that marking through the attorney's Social Security number will completely obscure the attorney's Social Security number if one has access to the paper form."

Your knowledge of the 1695 instructions is incomplete. We do not retain the original 1695 that is sanitized, only a photocopy EVEN IN PAPER FOLDERS. The blacked out part of the photocopy is unreadable.

Unless OMB has put forth a new statement, you are going to have to argue harder that the EIN is PII. The EIN would only create the link between the attorney and the firm. Many sites also publicly post or share EINs of private corporations.

Also, most non-disability cases do not include representatives -- because there are no past due benefits to collect -- and often when a representative is present, the fee is waived or no fee is requested.

EIN's are public information. They can be found in corporation filings, SEC filings of Dunn and Bradstreet reports.

They may be "hard" to find, but to claim that they are private is laughable. Also, your implication that SS employees are going to use that information for ill purposes is unsupported and pure speculation.

I acknowledge that simply blacking out the attorney's ssn on the original 1695 does not completely obscure it. That is why it is SSA policy to black it out and then photocopy the document, making the ssn then totally unreadable. This is the policy in my office and we do take all PII issues seriously. I do not think you should be concerned.

If you are still concerned about the redaction of your SSN on the 1695 (or if you encounter situations where it did not get photocopied after redaction), try doing it yourself. This would depend on the office, but you could at lease try submitting two copies of the 1695, one of which you have redacted, and ask SSA to destroy the unredacted copy and file the redacted one. This would actually save SSA staff time if accepted.